Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia Gorge casino


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. The issue of renaming is an editorial one and can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Columbia Gorge casino

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A proposed casino that doesn't even exist--violates WP:CRYSTAL. Qworty (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 *  Keep Rename: The rationale (CRYSTAL) has as its third sentence:   It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.  This is clearly the case with this article.  There has been considerable controversy over the proposal to build the casino, and so all sides of the debate have been well covered.  —EncMstr (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I amend my opinion to rename the article to Columbia Gorge Casino controversy. The current article should become a redirect to the new name.  —EncMstr (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Then let's have an article called "Columbia Gorge Casino Controversy," rather than an article about a place that doesn't exist. Qworty (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A very sensible suggestion. —EncMstr (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If renaming is opted for, I think something like "Proposed Columbia Gorge casino" is more neutral than "controversy." But again, I think the article should be kept as is. --Esprqii (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect Rename Columbia Gorge Casino controversy per comments above. Jsayre64   (talk)  23:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted above, if a proposal is well-covered by reliable sources, it's acceptable. Novickas (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The key to WP:CRYSTAL is if the article is well-sourced, verifiable, and written neutrally, all of which this article meets. Not only that, it meets the notability is not temporary guideline of general notability. --Esprqii (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If moved, should be at Columbia Gorge casino controversy (lower case on the generic "casino"), as we don't know that its official name is the "Columbia Gorge Casino". Do we? Valfontis (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - CRYSTAL is about Wikipedia editors speculating, as in I personally think Jesus is going to run for prez in 2012 and now I will go edit Wikipedia and add that tidbit. CRYSTAL does not keep RS from speculating, and we can then use those sources and their speculation, assuming it is relevant. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article covers over 10 years of history, which has include periods of planning, negotiation, lobbying, research, etc., in addition to controversy. I believe including the word "controversy" in the title would be inappropriate. I don't see a need to rename the article, but if others think so, I'd propose "casino in the Columbia Gorge" or "proposed casino in the Columbia Gorge" as more neutral titles. (note: for whatever it's worth, I'm the primary author of the article.) Pete (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking over other proposed things, like Category:Proposed buildings and structures, Category:Proposed nuclear power stations, I don't see any with the word controversy in the title. I'd prefer "Cascade Locks Resort and Casino" as used by the Federal Register but changing the name ought to be done at the article's talk page once this AFD is resolved. Novickas (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.